Kurt,
You make a valid point....one that my logic overlooked.
While I agree with your perspective about getting to a common infrastructure
first, I'm not at all convinced that we get to one single common document
content....
Using XML to tag and structure will be the commonality; the ebXML framework
will be (hopefully) the common infrastrasture; but common content. Wow!
that's a tall order. Process requirements analysis could - note I say
could - get to the lowest common set of content. This is where I think the
small organizations will be. The mid-to-large size guys will be far more
customized.
RAchel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Kanaskie, Kurt A
> (Kurt)
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:49 PM
> To: 'rachelf@ix.netcom.com'; 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
>
>
> Rachel,
>
> I could use your rational against you (although, I wont), as
> in: if a common
> infrastructure/framework was achievable we would all be using
> one now. I
> agree we should work on a common infrastructure/framework,
> but I am not
> giving up on a common content model. However, I think it
> makes more sense to
> have the common infrastructure there first. We can use the information
> gained from the numerous content standards to understand the
> requirements
> for the infrastructure (Dig Sig, etc.). That way we know just
> what has to go
> into the content part.
>
> I think part of the problem of not having a common PO for
> example is not due
> to differences in concepts, but differences in implementation
> and the lack
> of extensibility. I think XML is the silver bullet in this
> case. If we can
> define translations among the various incantations then we
> should be able to
> extract a common solution.
>
> P.S. Every now and then I get time to read the interesting
> and stimulating
> stuff on ebXML, it's a lot to keep up with, so pardon me if
> my responses
> fall off without warning.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
> kkanaskie@lucent.com
> (610) 712-3096
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 1:31 PM
> To: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
>
> Kurt,
>
> I don't have all the answers to the questions you posed
> below. However, my
> perspective re trying to achieve a single, common global
> standard PO or any
> other document is that it's just not achievable. If it were,
> everyone would
> already be using one common PO, either the UN/EDIFACT one of
> the X12 850 or
> some single common variant.
>
> The mere fact that there are company-specific variants of both the
> UN/EDIFACT messages and the X12 transaction sets PLUS all of
> the proprietary
> forms lead me to believe that having one common single format
> for any given
> business document is a pipe dream at best....my bet is that
> each of us will
> be able to fly to the moon in our individual space crafts
> before achieving
> that holy grail.
>
> Therefore, why not spend our collective efforts on developing a common
> framework/infrastructure that will support interoperability
> of any and all
> variants? That's much more achievable than developing a single common
> document format and then getting the world to adopt it.
>
> My two cents worth.....
>
> Rachel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:48 AM
> > To: 'rachelf@ix.netcom.com'; 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> > Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> >
> >
> > Rachel, William and others,
> >
> > I don't get it. I think the article was biased towards the "Internet
> > exchanges and e-businesses" perspective. It's like asking middleware
> > companies if there should be a single API for all ERP
> > systems. Of course
> > they will say no, because it is their business to connect
> > them all together.
> > Internet exchanges that can support more standards will have
> > a greater value
> > add, I guess. I also think it is a bit short sited of the
> > execs to not see
> > the light and work toward a common global standard. What
> > advantage is there
> > in multiple implementations of the same thing?
> >
> > I do understand the role of ebXML to provide a common
> > "infrastructure" for
> > all XML messages. But why stop there. I would much rather
> see a single
> > common PO rather that 5 or 6 different versions of the same
> > thing. That
> > starts to smell like the (dare I say) old EDI.
> >
> > I work in Lucent's CIO Strategy, Planning and Architecture
> > group where we
> > now have to deal with a PO from OAG and RN. Sure, the
> > immediate reaction is
> > to choose one as the Lucent standard and translate all others
> > to it, but I
> > don't want that architecture to persist or to proliferate. It
> > just adds
> > extra work.
> >
> > IMHO, of course,
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Kurt Kanaskie
> > Lucent Technologies
> > kkanaskie@lucent.com
> > (610) 712-3096
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rachel Foerster [mailto:rachelf@ix.netcom.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 11:57 AM
> > To: 'William J. Kammerer'; 'ebXML List'
> > Subject: RE: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> >
> > William,
> >
> > I think you've got it....let's hope others get it too!
> >
> > Rachel
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > [mailto:owner-ebxml@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of William J.
> > > Kammerer
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 10:01 AM
> > > To: ebXML List
> > > Subject: Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came
> > >
> > >
> > > I was asked privately to expand on the snippet from "XML Gave
> > > A War, But
> > > Nobody Came", (May 29, 2000), at
> > > http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?INW20000529S0046;
> > i.e., "what
> > > is the [effect] of set standards for structure vs. [a]
> > common, global
> > > standard for the language for XML/EDI?"
> > >
> > > Asked if they cared about which XML version will win, [nine
> > > e-commerce executives at top Internet exchanges and
> e-businesses]
> > > all shook their heads. They will fight to set standards for the
> > > structure of XML documents in their respective industries, they
> > > said, but not about setting a common, global standard for the
> > > language.
> > >
> > > On first blush it would seem that setting a common, global
> > > standard for
> > > the [XML] language is what we're trying to do in ebXML.
> But we're
> > > really building a universal framework for XML business to business
> > > messaging. In other words, ebXML recognizes the world
> > > doesn't need yet
> > > another purchase order and we're not going to try to build one.
> > >
> > > Instead, all the existing POs (and other messages) defined by the
> > > various industry initiatives can be transported, routed and
> > > packaged by
> > > ebXML's TR&P, and reposed and registered by ebXML's RegRep.
> > And that
> > > includes "legacy" X12 and EDIFACT messages!
> > >
> > > New messages can be built from ebXML's Core Components and
> > arranged by
> > > ebXML's Business Processes. With all this rich
> > > infrastructure provided
> > > by the ebXML framework, even RosettaNet, xCBL and eCO can
> > be subsumed
> > > into the Greater ebXML - the Grand Unified Framework.
> > >
> > > Or something like that. Don't ask me what I mean.
> > >
> > > William J. Kammerer
> > > FORESIGHT Corp.
> > > 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> > > Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> > > (614) 791-1600
> > >
> > > Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> > > "Commerce for a New World"
> > >
> > >